Kenol Kobil PLC v Narok County Government
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered Narok County to stop building on Kenol Kobil's land, remove the structures, and pay Kshs. 500,000 in damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved ownership of and trespass onto Narok/Township/343
Yes - ownership was unchallenged and survey reports showed the defendant's murram road and bridge encroached on the suit property, amounting to trespass.
PW1 proved the plaintiff purchased the land in 2007 and held a 99-year lease. Ownership was never denied or challenged by the defendant, who filed no defence. PW2, a licensed surveyor, produced two reports (6 August 2018 and 29 August 2019) showing beacons intact and ground measurements matching the survey plan, with the road and bridge encroaching. The defendant did not invalidate these reports. The court applied section 26 of the Land Registration Act on indefeasibility of title.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction, vacant possession and demolition of structures
Yes - a permanent injunction issued, and the defendant was ordered to remove or demolish structures on the suit property.
Having proved ownership and trespass on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for the injunctive and possessory relief sought. The defendant ignored a demand notice dated 13 May 2019 and proceeded with demarcation and construction. The court granted the injunction in the terms sought and ordered removal or, in the alternative, demolition of the structures erected by the defendant.
Whether general damages for trespass should be awarded absent evidence of the value of the property
Yes - the court exercised its discretion and awarded Kshs. 500,000/- as general damages for trespass, following the approach in John Chumia Nganga v Attorney General.
The plaintiff conceded it adduced no evidence of the value of the suit property but submitted the court retains discretion to award general damages for trespass. Relying on John Chumia Nganga v Attorney General & Another, where Kshs. 500,000/- was awarded, the court found the same sum adequate compensation for the deprivation of use, possession and quiet enjoyment of the encroached portion.
Legal principles established
#- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corruption (Section 26, Land Registration Act).
- An owner of property is entitled to rights over every portion of that property, not merely part of it.
- Unchallenged survey evidence establishing encroachment proves trespass on a balance of probabilities.
Court orders
#- 1.A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its employees, servants and/or agents or any person from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the property known as Narok/Township/343
- 2.The defendant to remove any structures erected on Narok/Township/343 or in the alternative the same to be demolished
- 3.General damages for trespass awarded to the plaintiff at Kshs. 500,000/-
- 4.Costs and interest from the date of filing the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land (Article 162(2)(b) context; suit filed as Environment & Land Case 40 of 2019)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenol Kobil PLC v Narok County Government", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 40 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16321/eng@2023-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.